I think that the actual criteria used to determine rankings in these types of lists is often times a bit confusing. Is this a ranking of players in order of most valuable to their teams? How about most talented at there position relative to other players at their positions? Does it deal with historical performance? Potential future performance?

If we're using the first criteria, I see no justification for Rodgers' placement at number 6 on this list. That's just ridiculous. In fact, using almost any reasonable set of criteria Rodgers' placement at 6 seems absurd to me.

I believe it is solely based on player votes. Each player makes up their own list of 100 and it's determined from there.

It appears our players are not thought of very highly by their peers and if I were one of our guys I'd be a tad insulted. I too hope they use this as motivation. It is pretty bad to see Woodson on this list. We all love Woody but he isn't the player he once was by a long shot. It is almost laughable that Manning and Brady are ahead of Rodgers. All I know is if you ask any GM in the league if they could have either of these QBs I know who they'd take in a heartbeat._________________

I think that the actual criteria used to determine rankings in these types of lists is often times a bit confusing. Is this a ranking of players in order of most valuable to their teams? How about most talented at there position relative to other players at their positions? Does it deal with historical performance? Potential future performance?

If we're using the first criteria, I see no justification for Rodgers' placement at number 6 on this list. That's just ridiculous. In fact, using almost any reasonable set of criteria Rodgers' placement at 6 seems absurd to me.

I believe it is solely based on player votes. Each player makes up their own list of 100 and it's determined from there.

I think that the actual criteria used to determine rankings in these types of lists is often times a bit confusing. Is this a ranking of players in order of most valuable to their teams? How about most talented at there position relative to other players at their positions? Does it deal with historical performance? Potential future performance?

If we're using the first criteria, I see no justification for Rodgers' placement at number 6 on this list. That's just ridiculous. In fact, using almost any reasonable set of criteria Rodgers' placement at 6 seems absurd to me.

I believe it is solely based on player votes. Each player makes up their own list of 100 and it's determined from there.

@PackerReport (Green Bay) at 2013-06-28 15:28:32
#Packers QBs 1973 through 1991: More TDs than INTs twice. Five times, twice as many INTs as TDs. Five other times, 1.5 as many INTs as TDs.

Those were some very bleak years and I endured them all.

As I suspected, the numbers in 1970, 1971 and 1972 weren't any better.

Brockington and Lane along with the defense (the original Gang Green) carried the team in '72.

IMO 1972 and 1989 were the only 2 seasons before Wolf and company when the Packers were truly any good. They did go to the post season in 1982 but that was the year of the strike and replacement players.

Like, seriously. Why are we not allowed to call out people for being stupid? There are 3 posters in that thread that if I were mod, I would have banned from this site, on grounds of stupidity. At least when I do it, it is obvious and a joke._________________GO PACK GO!

mistakebytehlak wrote:

My god it must be so terrible to have three teams that consistently make the playoffs

Like, seriously. Why are we not allowed to call out people for being stupid? There are 3 posters in that thread that if I were mod, I would have banned from this site, on grounds of stupidity. At least when I do it, it is obvious and a joke.

@PackerReport (Green Bay) at 2013-06-28 15:28:32
#Packers QBs 1973 through 1991: More TDs than INTs twice. Five times, twice as many INTs as TDs. Five other times, 1.5 as many INTs as TDs.

Those were some very bleak years and I endured them all.

I got half of them. Tough team for a kid to follow. I mostly watched the beginning of the game then went outside and usually watched the end if my parents hadn't turned it off yet._________________GO PACK GO!

mistakebytehlak wrote:

My god it must be so terrible to have three teams that consistently make the playoffs

svpJoined: 11 Sep 2011Posts: 1451Location: I took a football shaped pill and felt better.

Posted: Sat Jul 06, 2013 10:20 am Post subject:

I admit my fan base for the Packers stems from my dad being a jerk.
Unrelenting bad behavior all week, but when the game came on...
3 hours of comfortable peace. He watched the games silent and unmovable every week
no matter how bad they were playing.

Even after moving to other states I always bet on the Packers. To me
Packers means 3 hours of peace. It helps when they win and are winning
consecutively.
____________________________________________________________

I wonder if Aaron Rodgers read that "cold hard football facts" article?
All it says is that he is not clutch...? He takes alot of the blame even when
it's not his to own. If someone sent that article to him intentionally in attempts to make him more chippy?_________________

I don't know if he's clutch or not, but he's a big improvement over the guy we had before him in that regard. He was clearly the biggest big-game liability in NFL history. When it comes to choking away in big games, nobody else is even close.

I don't know if he's clutch or not, but he's a big improvement over the guy we had before him in that regard. He was clearly the biggest big-game liability in NFL history. When it comes to choking away in big games, nobody else is even close.